Support NeoGAF

[WedgeX]

Courtesy the Washington Post.

Attorneys general for the District of Columbia and the state of Maryland say they will sue President Trump on Monday, alleging that he has violated anti-corruption clauses in the Constitution by accepting millions in payments and benefits from foreign governments since moving into the White House.


The lawsuit, the first of its kind brought by government entities, centers on the fact that Trump chose to retain ownership of his company when he became president. Trump said in January that he was shifting his business assets into a trust managed by his sons to eliminate potential conflicts of interests.

...

If a federal judge allows the case to proceed, Racine and Frosh say, one of the first steps will be to demand through the discovery process copies of Trump’s personal tax returns to gauge the extent of his foreign business dealings. That fight would most likely end up before the Supreme Court, the two said, with Trump’s attorneys having to defend why the returns should remain private.
“This case is, at its core, about the right of Marylanders, residents of the District of Columbia and all Americans to have honest government,” Frosh said. To fully know the extent of Trump’s constitutional violations “we’ll need to see his financial records, his taxes that he has refused to release.”

...

In the Trump administration’s most detailed response yet, the Department of Justice filed a 70-page legal brief on Friday arguing the CREW lawsuit should be dismissed. The administration said Trump’s businesses are legally permitted to accept payments from foreign governments while he is in office. The filing held up the lack of past complaints — going all the way back to farm produce sold abroad by George Washington — to assert that market-rate payments for Trump’s real estate, hotel and golf companies do not constitute emoluments as defined by the Constitution.


Racine and Frosh, however, argue Trump’s violations are on scale never seen before and that both D.C. and Maryland are being adversely affected by the Trump hotel near the White House.

After hiring staff and holding events to cater to foreign diplomats, the Embassy of Kuwait held an event at the hotel, switching its initial booking from the Four Seasons. Saudi Arabia, the destination of Trump’s first trip abroad, also booked rooms at the hotel through an intermediary on more than one occasion since Trump’s inauguration. Turkey held a state-sponsored event there last month. And in April, the ambassador of Georgia stayed at the hotel and tweeted his compliments. Trump himself has appeared at the hotel and greeted guests repeatedly since becoming president.

 

[demosthenes]

Looking forward to Paul Ryan's defense case.

 

[jchap]

If a federal judge allows the case to proceed

Won't happen

 

[ShadowKingpin]

He's totally new to this political thing. He didn't know any better.

 

[KSweeley]

Already posted: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1389756

 

[Arttemis]

Won't happen

Federal judges are the reason the travel ban has been stopped twice, and that litigation is ongoing.

 

[Blader]

Federal judges are the reason the travel ban has been stopped twice, and that litigation is ongoing.

Major difference between suing to block an executive order and suing the president.

 

[Ac30]

Won't happen

They're not his appointees.

 

[ahoyhoy]

If we can't sue the President we should be able to sue Congress to get off their asses and start holding hearings about this nonsense.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

They're not his appointees.

I think it's more a statement that for one, the President is above the law. And it's very questionable if anyone other than the House of Representatives can levy challenges like this to the President.

I would not be shocked if the court threw this out saying that they are not the right venue for this and that the House would need to take action.

 

[Elandyll]

Major difference between suing to block an executive order and suing the president.

What better case for suing a President will there ever be than Trump?

Would the courts want to make a case that the President cannot be sued,ergo that he cannot do anything illegal?

 

[Ac30]

I think it's more a statement that for one, the President is above the law. And it's very questionable if anyone other than the House of Representatives can levy challenges like this to the President.

I would not be shocked if the court threw this out saying that they are not the right venue for this and that the House would need to take action.

Hmm, they were able to sue Clinton for crimes committed before becoming president. This will be... interesting.

 

[Cagey]

What better case for suing a President will there ever be than Trump?

Would the courts want to make a case that the President cannot be sued,ergo that he cannot do anything illegal?

Hmm, they were able to sue Clinton for crimes committed before becoming president. This will be... interesting.

There's likely no standing to sue alleging Emoluments Clause violations. Congress likely holds that power (impeachment).

 

[Rebel Leader]

Looking forward to Paul Ryan's defense case.

He's new to this

 

[BudokaiMR2]

Major difference between suing to block an executive order and suing the president.

Usually, that would absolutely be the case.

But this is Trump and I doubt many Federal judges even consider him president. He's unfit for office and anyone who isn't blinded by their own greed or hate can see that.

 

[Tovarisc]

He's new to this

It's kinda amazing that GOP's defense for this shitshow is "He is just most incompetent president in decades because he doesn't know what the fuck he is doing" and somehow that is okay.

 

[conpfreak]

Trump is so petty that he would likely push to kill the new FBI location in the current likely new location in Greenbelt, MD because of this.

 

[boiled goose]

Usually, that would absolutely be the case.

But this is Trump and I doubt many Federal judges even consider him president. He's unfit for office and anyone who isn't blinded by their own greed or hate can see that.

That would not be a reason for judges to allow this.

Law should be followed regardless of politics.

I hope this moves forward, but I don't know the legalities regarding standing

 

[WedgeX]

Already posted: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1389756

Ahhh missed that somehow.

 

[J_ToSaveTheDay]

Looking forward to Paul Ryan's defense case.

"He's been doing business all his life and it's all he knows and he's very good at it... But he's new to this, plain and simple!"